Issue 262: Colourful problem

Starting Date: 
2014-08-12
Working Group: 
4
Status: 
Done
Closing Date: 
2015-02-09
Background: 
Posted by Dan Matei 12/08/2014 
Friends. 
I have a problem with the colour :-) 
The case: 
Documents with applied seals... Beside the material of the seal, I want to specify its colour, using a suitable concept from the AAT Colour facet. [In the legacy records - for documents - I have a field "seal material" and one "seal colour"]. 
 
So, my plan is: 
<myDocument [E84_Information_carrier]> <P46_is_composed_of> <mySeal [E84]> 
<mySeal [E84]> <P45_consists_of> <myMaterial [E57_Material]> 
<mySeal [E84]> <P56_bears_feature> <myColour [E26_Physical_Feature]> 
e.g. 
<myColour [E26]> <P2_has_type> <aat: 300131648(i.e. chromatic colour) [E55_Type]> 
e.g. 
<myColour [E26]> <?> <aat: 300310722 (i.e. blood red) [E55]> 
 
NB. I'm converting AAT too. 
What's the right predicate (domain E26, range E55) to use, in order to say "myColour IS blood red" ? 
I could use rdf:value (domain rdfs:Resource, range rdfs:Resource), but I'm not comfortable with it. 
An advice, please... 
Posted by Vladimir on 13/8/2014 
Hi Dan! Interesting question. 
Documents with applied seals... Beside the material of the seal, I want to specify its colour, 
 
To my mind things like Seals and Ink Stamps are E25 Man-Made Features. 
Since Man-Made Feature is a subclass of Man-Made Thing, you can still attach Material. 
But there's a strong correlation between type and material: you can't make a relief seal from ink 
So I think it's better to incorporate type and material into an enumeration, using a thesauris like: 
<thesaurus/marks/wax_seal> 
<thesaurus/marks/golden_seal> 
<thesaurus/marks/leaden_seal> 
<thesaurus/marks/leaden_seal_with_machined_stamp> 
<thesaurus/marks/ink_stamp> 
<thesaurus/marks/customs_banderol_sticker> 
<thesaurus/marks/brand_burned_on_cow> (I'm sure there's a proper term for that). 
NOTE: E37 Mark is an information object so I should have used something like "seal" in the URLs above, but I'm too lazy to change that now.. 
 
In fact AAT defines some such hierarchy: 
And here is the sub-hierarchy of seals: 
 
<mySeal [E84]> <P56_bears_feature> <myColour [E26_Physical_Feature]> 
 
I don't think a Feature is something that covers the entirety of a Physical thing. 
But I consulted the scope note of Feature. Relevant excerpts: 
- "*may* have a one-, two- or three-dimensional geometric *extent*", i.e. not the whole thing. But not necessarily 
- "*portions* of particular objects with partially imaginary borders" 
- "can be .. scratches, holes, *reliefs*: so Seals are properly modeled as features, even if they have relief. 
- "*surface colours*, reflection zones in an opal crystal": so colors *are* included. But I think "colored spots/zones" is meant here 
 
What's the right predicate (domain E26, range E55) to use, in order to say "myColour IS blood red" ? 
 
I think an extension prop: P2X_has_color, subprop of P2_has_type 
 
using a suitable concept from the AAT Colour facet 
NB. I'm converting AAT too. 
- The old doc is here: aat_semantic_representation.pdf 
- the new doc (coming in a week) is here: http://vladimiralexiev.github.io/aat/index.htm 
- also coming in a week is TGN 
-- 
In summary, I would model it like this 
<document> P56_bears_feature <document/seal>. 
<document/seal> a E25_Man-Made_Feature; 
P2_has_type <thesaurus/marks/wax_seal>; 
P2X_has_color aat:300310722. # blood red 
 
Or if you already have a Materials thesaurus, split it like this: 
<document> P56_bears_feature <document/seal>. 
<document/seal> a E25_Man-Made_Feature; 
P2_has_type <thesaurus/marks/seal>; 
P45_consists_of <thesaurus/materials/wax>; 
P2X_has_color aat:300310722. # blood red 

 

Posted by Dan Matei 15/08/2014 
 
Hi Vladimir
Thanks for your comments. 
 
On 13 August 2014 20:48, Vladimir Alexiev wrote: 
> Documents with applied seals... Beside the material of the seal, I want to specify its colour, 
To my mind things like Seals and Ink Stamps are E25 Man-Made Features. 
I tend to agree, for the (really) applied seals. But I asked several museum people (the data providers) and the majority see the seal a distinct part. I continue to "investigate". Now I'm inclined to let them decide case-by-case. I'm still in dounbt :-( 
Should I treat the attached seals and applied seals differently ? 
 
In fact AAT defines some such hierarchy: 
And here is the sub-hierarchy of seals: 
 
Ha ! Good to know... 
 
I think an extension prop: P2X_has_color, subprop of P2_has_type 
 
Maybe... 
 
> NB. I'm converting AAT too. 
- The old doc is here: aat_semantic_representation.pdf 
- the new doc (coming in a week) is here: http://vladimiralexiev.github.io/aat/index.htm 
I'll read. Thanks. 
 
I'm ingesting AAT because (hopefully) we will add Romanian terms. That's the "political" reason, but also converting it to CRM (well specialised a bit :-( is interesting.

 

Posted by Vladimir 7/9/2014 
Hi Dan! 
 
attached seals, e.g. BLA1.jpg museum people (the data providers) and the majority see the seal a distinct part 
 
Oh, I agree that's a Part not a Feature. It hangs by a thread! 
 
the new doc (coming in a week) is here: http://vladimiralexiev.github.io/aat/index.htm 
 
The official version is here: http://vocab.getty.edu/doc/ 
 
I'm ingesting AAT because (hopefully) we will add Romanian terms. 
 
I'm sure the Getty will be interested to hear about this, even if it's only a small part. 
Currently there are only 17 Romainan terms (all in TGN, none in AAT): 
select * {?x dct:language gvp_lang:ro} 
The last 3 days I've been at the International Terminology Working Group, and we heard reports on various translation projects, from Chile to Taiwan.

 

Outcome: 

In the 32nd joined meeting of the CIDOC CRM SIG and ISO/TC46/SC4/WG9 and the 25th FRBR - CIDOC CRM Harmonization meeting  the crm-sig decided that this issue is covered by the issue 255. So this issue is closed.

Oxford February 2015